eNOS4 polymorphism of the endothelial nitric oxide synthase predicts risk for severe diabetic retinopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic factors may be involved in the development, and particularly in the severity, of diabetic retinopathy (DR), in addition to chronic hyperglycaemia. Increased nitric oxide generation has been suggested to play a significant role in the pathogenesis of DR. AIMS AND METHODS: To examine whether the eNOS4 is involved in the risk of severe DR, 200 unrelated Caucasian Type 1 diabetic patients of long duration were randomly selected (M/F 103/97, age 44.4 +/- 12.4 years, diabetes duration 27.7 +/- 10.0 years, body mass index 24.3 +/- 3.4 kg/m2, HbA1c 8.6 +/- 1.3%). The eNOS4 polymorphism was analysed by polymerase chain reaction, and DR by retinal angiography and classified as presence (n = 101) or absence (n = 99) of severe (proliferative or pre-proliferative) DR. RESULTS: The genotype distribution of eNOS4b/b (wild-type), eNOS4b/a (heterozygous) and eNOS4a/a (homozygous) was 72%, 24.5% and 3.5%, respectively. Frequency of eNOS4a/a was significantly lower in patients with severe DR (n = 0) when compared with controls (n = 7, odds ratio (OR) = 0 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.5-0.74), P = 0.02). eNOS4b/b was more frequent in patients with severe DR (n = 80) when compared with controls (n = 64, OR = 2.1 (95% CI = 1.1-4.12), P = 0.032). Frequency of eNOS4b/a was not different between the study (n = 21) and control groups (n = 28, ns). The allelic frequencies between the study and control groups were different (4b: n = 181 vs. n = 156, respectively, OR = 2.3 (95% CI = 1.27-4.25), P = 0.005; 4a: n = 21 vs. n = 42, respectively, OR = 0.4 (95% CI = 0.24-0.79), P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate in Caucasians with Type 1 diabetes that (i) eNOS4a/a is associated with absent or non-severe DR, and (ii) eNOS4b/b is associated with severe DR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".